The assessment of electromagnetic field radiation exposure for mobile phone users
Abstract
Background/Aim. During recent years, the widespread use of mobile phones has resulted in increased human exposure to electromagnetic field radiation and to health risks. Increased usage of mobile phones at the close proximity raises questions and doubts in safety of mobile phone users. The aim of the study was to assess an electromagnetic field radiation exposure for mobile phone users by measuring electromagnetic field strength in different settings at the distance of 1 to 30 cm from the mobile user. Methods. In this paper, the measurements of electric field strength exposure were conducted on different brand of mobile phones by the call-related factors: urban/rural area, indoor/outdoor setting and moving/stationary mode during calls. The different types of mobile phone were placed facing the field probe at 1 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm distance. Results. The highest electric field strength was recorded for calls made in rural area (indoors) while the lowest electric field strength was recorded for calls made in urban area (outdoors). Calls made from a phone in a moving car gave a similar result like for indoor calls; however, calls made from a phone in a moving car exposed electric field strength two times more than that of calls in a standing (motionless) position. Conclusion. Electromagnetic field radiation depends on mobile phone power class and factors, like urban or rural area, outdoor or indoor, moving or motionless position, and the distance of the mobile phone from the phone user. It is recommended to keep a mobile phone in the safe distance of 10, 20 or 30 cm from the body (especially head) during the calls.
References
Hardell L, Sage C. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmaco-ther 2008; 62(2): 104−9.
Krewski D, Glickman BW, Habash RW, Habbick B, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, et al. Recent advances in research on radiofre-quency fields and health: 2001-2003. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2007; 10(4): 287−318.
Munshi A, Jalali R. Cellular phones and their hazards: the cur-rent evidence. Natl Med J India 2002; 15(5): 275−7.
Valuntaite V, Girgzdiene R. Investigation of ozone emission and dispersion from photocopying machines. J Environ Eng Landsc Manage 2007; 15(2): 61−7.
Vaisis V, Janusevicius T. Investigation and evaluation of noise level in the Northern part of Klaipeda city. J Environ Eng Landsc Manage 2008; 16(2): 89−96.
Usman A, Wan Ahmad W, Ab Kadir M, Mokhtar M. Wireless Phones Electromagnetic Field Radiation Exposure Assess-ment. Am J Eng Appl Sci 2009; 4 (2): 771−4.
IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency elec-tromagnetic fields. Lyon, France: International Agency for Re-search on Cancer; 2011.
Akbal A, Kiran Y, Sahin A, Turgut-Balik D, Balik H. Effects of electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones on germina-tion, root growth, and root tip cell mitotic division of Lens cu-linaris Medik. Pol J Environ Stud 2012; 21(1): 23−9.
Baltrenas P, Fröhner K, Puzinas D. Investigation of noise dispersion from seaport equipment on the enterprise territory and residential environment. J Environ Eng Landsc Manage 2007; 15(2): 85−92.
Damian C, Foşalău С. Sources of indoor noise and options to minimize adverse human health effects. Environ Eng Manage J 2011; 10(3): 393−400.
Bahr A, Dorn H, Bolz T. Dosimetric assessment of an exposure system for simulating GSM and WCDMA mobile phone us-age. Bioelectromagnetics 2006; 27(4): 320–7.
Januseviciene I, Venckus Z. The numerical modeling of nitrogen oxides and coal monoxide in the atmosphere when applying PHOENICS programme. J Environ Eng Landsc Manage 2011; 3(19): 225–33.
Paulauskas L, Klimas R. Modelling of the spread of motor transport noise in Siauliai city. J Environ Eng Landsc Manage 2011; 1(19): 62–70.
Hillert L, Ahlbom A, Neasham D, Feychting M, Järup L, Navin R, et al. Call-related factors influencing output power from mobile phones. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2006; 16(6): 507−14.
INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39(3): 675−94.
Bednarek K. Electromagnetic Action of Heavy-Current Equip-ment Operating With Power Frequency. Int J Occup Saf Er-gon 2010; 16(3): 357−68.
Baltrenas P, Buckus R, Vasarevicus S. Modelling of the Computer Classroom Electromagnetic Field. Electron Electric Eng 2011; 109(3): 75–80.
Baltrenas P, Buckus R. The exploration and assessment of elec-tromagnetics fields in duplicators. . J Environ Eng Landsc Manage 2009; 17(2): 89−96. (Lithuanian)
Dolan M, Rowley J. The precautionary principle in the context of mobile phone and base station radio frequency exposures. Environ Health Perspect 2009; 117(9): 1329–32.
Grigoriev J. Electromagnetic Fields and the Public: EMF Standards and Estimation of Risk. Earth Environ Sci 2010; 10(1): 1–6.
Lin JC. Cellular mobile phones and children. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine 2002; 44 (5): 142-5.
Mousa A. Electromagnetic Radiation Measurements and Safety Issues of some Cellular Base Stations in Nablus. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 2011; 1(4): 35−42.
Loughran SP, Wood AW, Barton JM, Croft RJ, Thompson B, Stough C. The effect of electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones on human sleep. Neuroreport 2005; 16(17): 1973−6.
Psenakova Z, Hudecova J. Influence of Electromagnetic Fields by Electronic Implants in Medicine. Electron Electric Eng 2009; 95 (7): 37–40.
Ahlbom A, Cardis E, Green A, Linet M, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Review of epidemiologic literature on EMF and health. Envi-ron Health Perspect 2001; 109(Suppl 6): 911–33.
Received on Januar